On 9/29/06, Steve Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Yakov Lerner", Fri, September 29, 2006 3:43 pm > On 9/29/06, Steve Hall wrote > > From: "Yakov Lerner", Fri, September 29, 2006 2:24 pm > > > > > > There must have been reason for this ("linebreak ... is not used > > > when...'list' is on"). > > > > > > Is it because with list on, representation of tabs can be > > > different/incorrect from "correct" representation, and visual > > > line length will be incorrect ? > > > > I'd say this should only be the case if &list's tab representation > > differs (is only one char) from &tabstop, but otherwise it > > shouldn't. > > That's right wrt visual line lengths. > Going back to the "fix linebreak when list is on": > > (a) would it be good enough to fix it for the case > when &list tab's representation is same as 'nolist' ? > (i think this case is very easy to fix ), or > > (b) you want it fixed for both cases, also when > "&list's tab representation differs (is only one char) from > &tabstop" ? > (the (b) case must be more difficult) ? > > So, did you mean (a) fix or (b) fix ?I'm only interested in (a). However, I imagine there would be enough opinions on fixing (b) here to have to provide a new option. :)
No no, I don't expect anybody interested in (b). Yakov
